Re: [Int-area] Continuing the addressing discussion: what is an address anyway?

Jens Finkhaeuser <jens@interpeer.io> Mon, 07 March 2022 09:12 UTC

Return-Path: <jens@interpeer.io>
X-Original-To: int-area@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: int-area@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D24A73A0CBD for <int-area@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 7 Mar 2022 01:12:29 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.106
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.106 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H5=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=interpeer.io
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id LKEGYuKtELdw for <int-area@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 7 Mar 2022 01:12:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-4323.proton.ch (mail-4323.proton.ch [185.70.43.23]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E81D83A0C9C for <Int-area@ietf.org>; Mon, 7 Mar 2022 01:12:23 -0800 (PST)
Date: Mon, 07 Mar 2022 09:12:18 +0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=interpeer.io; s=protonmail; t=1646644339; bh=kZevsE/2WwWbweO6opCI4HpfYBo7jN/TX/qk/sSuf2g=; h=Date:To:From:Cc:Reply-To:Subject:Message-ID:In-Reply-To: References:From:To:Cc:Date:Subject:Reply-To:Feedback-ID: Message-ID; b=TpIAAR0Tukz/uNxP8kBhWozEdvVaXLUdNqxSU/8qYJCxGGbDeUCQoZ4PfWIH9y7CW Bd2ItxGoZV+wJgOj82pbkA7Vu3LcUqrIdXUDJr/XZVHahNjbzqXlRn9PCmBnJU5cLQ xp3UHHS0r5VfLyufG+v4D0HAvn6hk1f4y1NxHaQk=
To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
From: Jens Finkhaeuser <jens@interpeer.io>
Cc: Toerless Eckert <tte@cs.fau.de>, Dino Farinacci <farinacci@gmail.com>, "Int-area@ietf.org" <Int-area@ietf.org>, Dirk Trossen <dirk.trossen=40huawei.com@dmarc.ietf.org>
Reply-To: Jens Finkhaeuser <jens@interpeer.io>
Message-ID: <Gpm-qFUmOVey9DYUJV6S_UNYb02p7ANbT8rEjy8JA54B__1YeX6Uny2E16uEg_o-R7v9CWPdDbyOgNW7nJyACAbx7Ok99Q-zad1EsgYBerc=@interpeer.io>
In-Reply-To: <499a3364-7ea5-4268-cce3-43f010f36a72@gmail.com>
References: <57c643c667d94a77b9917bb17dc142a5@huawei.com> <7de0956f-3fde-1543-405b-b635f6e69362@lear.ch> <Yh5M18z2/YVfpW7i@faui48e.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> <A771FFF8-43A8-4D84-8B6E-A3E7AF96644E@gmail.com> <YiBhOKIK9bMqwx0a@faui48e.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> <385CF477-C876-482F-ADFE-DAAD6CA7BAEC@gmail.com> <YiH6iHwv+U9QFA06@faui48e.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> <499a3364-7ea5-4268-cce3-43f010f36a72@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg="pgp-sha512"; boundary="------ce747ea7232bbd9ddd695c203f5183c0b5a5eb90a2a1a5f680261408285e9443"; charset="utf-8"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/int-area/weNPgOKY6wP-xZ-x9GHyHJGJZPU>
Subject: Re: [Int-area] Continuing the addressing discussion: what is an address anyway?
X-BeenThere: int-area@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF Internet Area WG Mailing List <int-area.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/int-area>, <mailto:int-area-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/int-area/>
List-Post: <mailto:int-area@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:int-area-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area>, <mailto:int-area-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 07 Mar 2022 09:12:30 -0000

Hi,

I'm new on the list - I'll just jump in, I suppose. I'm working on a couple of R&D projects on drone communications, where most participants tend to invent a different wheel from people here. Part of my being here is trying to bridge that gap a bit.

I largely like the RFC 6115 definition, as it is also compatible with the URI/URL definitions more people might be used to. That should help with adoption.

I've been reading up on LISP-MN and/or LISP+ALT (that's on a different list, I know), and am currently unsure that these proposals fully meet the needs of drones. I'll have to understand the proposals better.

The addressing related point here is IMHO the RFC 6115 definition for identifiers may be more suitable for drone uses than the LISP-MN proposal treats EIDs: drones must carry static identifiers for authentication of control handover, while the EID assignment in the proposal reads to me as slightly more dynamic (though not as dynamic as RLOC assignment).

Hope that helps,
Jens

------- Original Message -------

On Friday, March 4th, 2022 at 20:57, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> wrote:

> Toerless,
> 

> I believe the closest we ever got to agreed definitions was in the
> 

> IRTF RFC 6115:
> 

> 6. A "locator" is a structured topology-dependent name that is not
> 

> used for node identification and is not a path. Two related
> 

> meanings are current, depending on the class of things being
> 

> named:
> 

> 1. The topology-dependent name of a node's interface.
> 

> 2. The topology-dependent name of a single subnetwork OR
> 

> topology-dependent name of a group of related subnetworks
> 

> that share a single aggregate. An IP routing prefix is a
> 

> current example of the latter.
> 

> 7. An "identifier" is a topology-independent name for a logical
> 

> node. Depending upon instantiation, a "logical node" might be a
> 

> single physical device, a cluster of devices acting as a single
> 

> node, or a single virtual partition of a single physical device.
> 

> An OSI End System Identifier (ESID) is an example of an
> 

> identifier. A Fully Qualified Domain Name (FQDN) that precisely
> 

> names one logical node is another example. (Note well that not
> 

> all FQDNs meet this definition.)
> 

> Regards
> 

> Brian
> 

> On 05-Mar-22 00:39, Toerless Eckert wrote:
> 

> > On Thu, Mar 03, 2022 at 09:28:23AM -0800, Dino Farinacci wrote:
> > 

> > > > of its address structure helps the underlay to locate the entity (xTR) that the
> > > > 

> > > > address is assigned to (xTR). So the name 'locator' is 'just' a good
> > > > 

> > > > name for what LISP calls/uses the address for, not for how the under
> > > > 

> > > > itself would maybe call the address or use the address for.
> > > 

> > > Well the locator you put in an outer header destination address is called/used/assign to whatever the rules of the underlay are. If the underlay is ethernet, then its a 6-byte address where the high-order 3 bytes is an organizational ID, just to cite an example.
> > 

> > Indeed.
> > 

> > I have not seen an answer to the question i posed earlier in the thread:
> > 

> > whether and if so what general (not technology specific) definition of locator
> > 

> > and identifier the IETF may have. But i have seen a lot of confusion about
> > 

> > it and people shying away from using these terms.
> > 

> > If (as i think) we do not have a commonly applicable definition of locator/identifier
> > 

> > (beyond its use in indivdual technologies like LISP), then i think this is because
> > 

> > folks who tried to apply these terms (incorrectly) may have failed to
> > 

> > see the difference between what an address is and what someone (like an
> > 

> > application) calls it (/uses it for). In that respect the reference to
> > 

> > the White Knight in IEN19 is very helpful to remember.
> > 

> > Cheers
> > 

> > Toerless
> > 

> > > Dino
> 

> _______________________________________________
> 

> Int-area mailing list
> 

> Int-area@ietf.org
> 

> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area